THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


SPEECH 


OF 


ON.  JAMES  F.  BRIGGS, 


BEFORE  THE 


RAILROAD  COMMITTEE 


OF  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JULY  20,  1887. 


Concorb,  ft.  |j. 


PRINTED  BY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION. 

1  88  7. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/railroadquestionOObrig 


THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


SPEECH 

'  OF 

* 

HON.  JAMES  F.  BRIGGS, 

BEFORE  THE 

RAILROAD  COMMITTEE 


OF  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JULY  20,  1887. 


(Eontorfr,  ft.  M). 


PRINTED  BY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION. 

1  8  8  7. 


3>S5 .  \ 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  JAMES  F.  BRIGGS. 


Mr.  Chairman ,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee ,  and  Members  of 

the  House  of  Representatives : 

After  you  have  listened  to  the  remarks  that  have  been  made 
by  the  distinguished  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me,  what  few 
suggestions  I  shall  make  to  you  may  appear  tame  and  uninter¬ 
esting  ;  but  having  some  views  that  I  wish  to  present  upon  the 
questions  which  are  before  you,  I  hope  and  have  no  doubt  that 
you  will  give  these  suggestions  whatever  weight  they  may  be 
entitled  to. 

And  first,  I  want  to  speak  somewhat  of  the  legislation  of  1883. 
Prior  to  that  time  it  had  been  the  policy  of  the  state  to  retain  in 
the  hands  of  the  legislature  substantially  the  entire  control  of 
all  our  railroads,  wherever  they  were,  or  whatever  their  length  or 
their  value.  Prior  to  that  time  no  man  nor  any  body  of  men 
could  organize  a  railroad  corporation  in  this  state  without  first 
obtaining  the  sanction  of  its  legislature.  That  had  been  its  uni- 
form  policy  from  the  granting  of  the  first  charter  down  to  the 
time  when  the  Colby  bill  and  the  railroad  commissioners’  bill 
were  passed.  It  has  been  attempted  in  this  discussion,  and  by 
discussions  which  have  taken  place  in  the  public  press,  to  create 
the  impression  that  the  Colby  bill  was  passed  simply  to  enable 
the  Concord,  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal,  and  the  North¬ 
ern  roads,  and  the  roads  that  lead  through  this  valley,  to  unite 
and  form  the  Central  system  ; — and  further,  to  permit  the 
Boston  &  Maine  and  the  Eastern  to  form  another  system, 
either  by  union,  consolidation,  or  lease  :  that  they  termed  the 
Eastern  system.  And  it  has  been  stated  still  further,  that  inas¬ 
much  as  the  Boston  &  Maine  and  the  Eastern  have  united,  and 
the  roads  up  through  this  valley  have  not  united,  according  to 


4 


this  claimed  intent  and  purpose  of  the  Colby  bill,  therefore  you 
should  pass  something  to  relieve  the  Concord  Railroad  and 
these  other  railroads,  and  allow  them  to  unite. 

Now  I  say  here,  gentlemen, — and  I  know  what  I  sav,  because 
I  was  in  the  legislature  myself  and  took  some  part  in  the  dis¬ 
cussions  of  these  various  measures, — I  sa}?  that  that  house  and 
that  senate  intended  something  beyond  the  mere  question  of  a 
union  of  the  roads  in  this  valley,  and  something  beyond  a  union 
of  the  Boston  &  Maine  with  the  Eastern.  It  was  claimed  then 
that  the  policy  which  New  Hampshire  had  pursued  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  should  be  changed.  It  was  claimed  then,  and  advo¬ 
cated  upon  this  floor,  that  other  states — thirty-one  or  more  of 
the  states  and  territories  of  the  Union — had  adopted  general 
railroad  laws,  and  had  allowed  railroad  corporations  to  be  cre¬ 
ated  and  established  and  railroads  to  be  constructed  under  gen¬ 
eral  laws,  without  special  legislation  in  each  particular  case  ; 
and  it  was  urged  that  if  you  would  give  railroad  corporations 
the  power  to  organize  under  a  general  law,  and  the  power  to 
unite,  either  by  lease  or  by  consolidation,  under  the  general  law 
— under  the  restrictions  which  that  law  imposed — and  place  them 
all  under  a  board  of  commissioners  invested  with  extraordinary 
powers,  it  would  be  legislation  for  the  best  interests  of  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  in  accordance  with  the  progressive  leg¬ 
islation  that  has  characterized  other  states  and  territories  in  the 
Union.  So  I  say,  no  matter  who  makes  the  claim,  no  matter 
for  what  purpose  it  is  made,  he  who  claims  that  it  was  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  creating  a  Central  or  an  Eastern  system  belittles 
the  legislation  of  1883.  It  meant  more  than  that.  It  meant  an 
absolute  and  an  entire  change  in  the  legislative  policy  of  New 
Hampshire.  Why,  gentlemen,  if,  as  these  gentlemen  claim,  or 
as  it  is  pretended,  it  was  simply  to  enable  certain  corporations  to 
unite  or  to  lease  each  other,  what  earthly  necessity  is  there  for 

«/  V 

the  first  sixteen  sections  of  the  Colby  bill?  Every  single  one  of 
them,  from  one  to  sixteen,  relates  to  the  creation  of  railroad  cor¬ 
porations  and  the  construction  of  railroads  under  the  general 
law.  The  legislature  of  the  state  never  intended  such  restrictive 
and  narrow  legislation  as  these  gentlemen  now  claim. 

It  is  true,  and  it  should  be  stated,  that  the  roads  in  this  valley 
supposed  they  could  unite  under  the  Colby  bill  by  lease  or  by 


5 


consolidation.  It  is  true  that  the  friends  of  the  Eastern  and  of 
the  Boston  &  Maine  railroads  supposed  that  under  that  bill 
they  could  unite,  either  bv  lease  or  by  consolidation.  And  this 
nobody  questions  or  denies.  They  could  unite, — or  any  other 
two  roads,  whether  in  this  vallev  or  in  the  eastern  or  the  western 
part  of  New  Hampshire,  that  come  within  the  provisions  of  sec¬ 
tion  seventeen  and  some  of  the  following  sections,  could  unite 
also, — and  either  form  one  corporation,  or  one  operate  the  other 
by  lease.  That  was  the  policy  that  the  state  adopted.  That  it 
was  the  intent  and  the  purpose  of  the  legislature  is  perfectly 
clear  and  indisputable,  and  the  proper  reading  of  the  Colby  bill, 
coupled  with  the  commissioners’  bill,  establishes  it  beyond  cavil 
and  beyond  dispute. 

There  is  another  thing  I  wish  to  say  in  relation  to  that  legis¬ 
lation.  These  two  bills  travelled  along  side  by  side  nearly  all 
the  way  through.  The  Colby  bill  passed  both  houses  first. 
Common  rumor  said  that  it  lay  upon  the  table  of  the  executive, 
and  he  declined  to  affix  his  signature  to  it  and  to  give  his  ap¬ 
proval  to  the  measure  until  the  other  bill,  which  created  and 
established  a  board  of  railroad  commissioners,  had  passed  the 
house  and  the  senate.  They  were  part  and  parcel  of  the  same 
legislation,  intending  to  reverse  or  change  the  railroad  policy  of 
New  Hampshire.  The  governor  did  not  want  one,  neither  did 
I,  unless  he  had  the  two.  The  two  were  passed,  this  legislation 
was  secured,  and  the  policy  of  New  Hampshire  in  dealing  with 
its  railroads  was  radicallv  changed. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  stated  that  I  opposed  that  legislation.  I 
tried  to  perfect  that  bill  after  I  saw  that  it  was  the  sentiment  of 
the  house  to  pass  it.  Certain  amendments  were  proposed.  I 
thought  then  that  the  same  or  substantially  the  same  provisions 
should  apply  to  the  leasing  of  railroads  as  applied  to  their 
consolidation.  My  position  theu  was,  and  I  had  an  amendment 
— one  of  the  series  that  would  have  reached  the  result — that 
some  tribunal  should  pass  upon  the  question  of  the  public  exi¬ 
gency  ;  and  another  was  for  appraisal  of  the  interests  of  dissent¬ 
ing  stockholders.  I  thought  that  at  that  time  this  was  wise  and 
prudent,  and  if  that  had  been  attached  to  the  bill  this  question 
would  not  be  here  before  you  for  adjudication  ;  for  I  believe, 
with  that  provision,  the  laws  that  were  made  would  have  been 


6 


sustained  by  the  court.  Still,  that  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion  : 
it  may  be  worth  something,  it  may  be  worth  nothing. 

Now,  sir,  it  may  seem  strange  that  an  opponent  of  that  meas¬ 
ure  should  stand  here  and  ask  for  the  passage  of  the  Hazen  bill. 
There  may  be  a  reason  for  that.  There  is  a  reason,  and  it  is 
this  :  We  have  tried  the  union  under  the  Colby  bill.  The  Bos¬ 
ton  &  Maine  have  leased  the  Eastern  ;  the  Boston,  Concord  & 
Montreal  and  the  Northern,  and  their  branches,  have  been  leased 
or  attempted  to  be  leased  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell.  The  Boston 
&  Lowell  have  operated  those  roads  under  the  lease  until  the 
lease  of  the  Northern  was  terminated  by  a  decision  of  the  court. 
The  validity  of  the  Montreal  lease  is  still  in  question,  but  the 
Lowell  road  still  continue  to  operate  the  Boston,  Concord  & 
Montreal.  Now,  gentleman,  what  has  been  the  result  of  this 
policy  thus  far  in  New  Hampshire?  I  say  it  here,  without  fear 
of  contradiction,  and  the  testimony  of  every  witness  who  has 
been  upon  the  stand,  I  think,  save  two — and  those  were  special 
cases — has  been,  that  on  the  Northern  and  its  branches,  and  on  the 
Montreal,  they  have  had  increased  railroad  facilities  ;  they  have 
had  better  trains  and  more  of  them  ;  they  have  had  reduced  fares 
and  reduced  freights.  And  not  onlv  that,  but  a  system  that 
formerly  prevailed  on  some  of  the  roads  of  giving  special  rates 
to  special  individuals  or  to  special  localities  has  been  broken  up, 
and  all  men  and  all  localities  have  received  substantially  the 
same  fares  and  the  same  freights,  and  equal  privileges  have 
been  granted  and  conferred  upon  all.  Now  I  ask  you  if  that  is 
not  the  fact  from  this  testimony? 

Mr.  A.  L.  Brown  testifies  —  you  remember  what  he  savs, 
and  I  only  call  your  attention  to  how  he  operated  under  the  old 
rule,  and  what  the  result  has  been  under  the  new, — and  I  say 
that  it  is  conclusively  established  that  the  people,  the  patrons 
of  these  roads  all  up  and  down  the  lines,  have  been  better  and 
more  cheaply  served  than  under  any  other  system  that  ever  pre¬ 
vailed  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 

Now  there  is  another  thing.  So  far  as  the  Boston  &  Lowell 
are  concerned,  this  trial  has  been  under  difficult  and  embarrass¬ 
ing  circumstances.  The  legality  of  their  lease  of  the  Northern 
was  called  in  question,  and  the  effect  of  breaking  that  lease 
upon  the  lease  by  which  they  held  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Mon- 


7 


treal  was  uncertain  ;  and  such  has  been  their  situation,  not 
knowing  whether  this  system  was  to  continue  and  this  lease  to 
be  upheld,  that  they  have  not  expended  the  money  that  would 
have  been  expended,  and  those  roads  have  not  been  put  in  the 
condition  which  they  would  have  been  put  in,  could  these  men 
have  been  assured  of  the  continuance  of  the  leases  for  the  time 
stated. 

Now,  sir,  with  such  results  through  this  consolidating  or 
leasing,  with  such  results  as  you  find  on  the  Boston  &  Maine 
and  its  branches,  I  ask  you,  men  of  intelligence,  men  of  sense, 

if  it  is  worth  while  to  turn  back  to  the  policy  which  existed  prior 

/ 

to  1883,  or  whether  it  is  not  better  to  continue  the  policy  then 
adopted  and  allow  these  improvements  to  go  on,  and  allow  leas¬ 
ing  to  continue  and  the  people  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  it  for  a  while 
longer,  before  it  is  destroyed  and  thrown  aside. 

There  is  another  thing  in  connection  with  this  matter,  al¬ 
though  I  do  not  wish  to  trouble  you  too  long  in  considering  it. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  a  report  of  the  railroad  commissioners  for 
1887.  I  have  told  you  the  result  of  the  operation  of  the  leased 
lines  under  these  contracts  made,  or  attempted  to  be  made, 
under  the  Colby  bill,  the  beneficial  results  that  have  followed 
from  them,  and  the  advantages  which  the  public  have  derived. 
Now  let  us  see  what  the  effect  has  been  upon  the  railroads  them¬ 
selves.  If  you  will  turn  to  the  sixth  page  of  this  report,  you 
will  find  a  table  showing  the  appreciation  of  New  Hampshire 
railroad  stocks  in  eight  years.  The  increase  in  value  since  1883 
in  the  roads  named — I  will  not  trouble  you  by  reading  it  all, 
because  you  have  access  to  this  report — is  as  follows  :  The 
increase  on  the  Boston  &  Lowell  has  been  $61  per  share  ;  on 
the  Nashua  &  Lowell,  $19  ;  on  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal, 
preferred,  $4  ;  on  the  Northern,  $20  ;  Pemigewasset,  $4  ;  Bos¬ 
ton  &  Maine,  $69  ;  Eastern,  $96  ;  Eastern  (N.  H.),  $22  ;  Ports¬ 
mouth  &  Dover,  $6  ;  Portsmouth,  Great  Falls  &  Conway,  $96  ; 
Worcester,  Nashua  &  Rochester,  $84 ;  Concord,  $23 ;  Man¬ 
chester  &  Lawrence,  $44  ;  Cheshire,  preferred,  $60  ;  Connecticut 
River,  $32. 

Now  let  me  go  a  little  further.  This  report  says, — 

Taken  together,  the  stocks  that  have  been  continually  listed 
since  1878  have  more  than  doubled  since  that  time — the  average 


8 


value  of  $100  shares  in  each  being  $73  then  and  $155  now,  an 
average  gain  of  $82.  This  appreciation  is,  except  in  one  or  two 
cases,  in  no  way  due  to  stock  board  manipulations,  but  to  in¬ 
creased  confidence  in  prospective  dividends,  the  resultant  of  a 
large  increase  of  business,  and  consolidations  which  promised 
large  reductions  in  the  percentage  of  expenses  to  gross  earn¬ 
ings. 

Then,  upon  the  opposite  page  is  another  table,  showing  the 
gross  expenses  and  earnings  in  1885.  The  total  receipts  from 
passengers  was  $17,989,140.56  ;  the  gross  expenses  were 
$14,225,966.04.  The  net  income  in  1885  was  $3,763,174.06. 
The  next  year,  1886,  the  total  income  was  over  $20,000,000  ; 
and  the  report  says, — 

The  gain  in  receipts  is  12.75  per  cent,  (that  is  in  one  year), 
and  in  net  income  only  20  per  cent,  over  the  preceding  year. 
In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  increase  in 
the  earnings  of  the  seventy-six  roads  taken  by  Bradstreet  as 
representatives  of  the  railroad  business  of  the  whole  country 
was  but  6.2  per  cent. 

And  the  report  gives  the  result  of  different  groups  of  rail¬ 
roads.  So,  after  this  experience  with  the  Colby  bill,  I  say  you 
cannot  point  to  an  industry,  you  cannot  point  to  an  individual, 
to  a  locality,  to  a  railroad,  to  a  stockholder,  who  has  not  been 
benefited  by  the  change  that  was  made  in  the  railroad  policy  of 
the  state  in  1883,  and  by  the  experiments  we  have  made  in  the 
operation  of  these  roads  under  these  leases.  Is  it  worth  while 
to  change  it? 

You  have  two  bills  before  you,  and  this  hearing  is  upon  both 
of  them.  One  of  them  is  what  is  denominated  the  Atherton 
bill,  and  the  other  is  the  Hazen  bill ;  but  before  I  go  to  that  I 
want  to  say  one  thing  further  about  this  Colby  bill.  There  were 
four  things — and  perhaps  others,  but  there  were  four  leading 
things — provided  for  by  that  bill  and  intended  to  be  accom¬ 
plished  by  it — that  and  the  commissioners’  bill,  for  they  go  to¬ 
gether. 

The  first  you  find  in*  the  first  sixteen  sections,  whereby  rail¬ 
roads  could  be  established  under  a  general  law.  Then  you  find, 
in  section  seventeen,  an  attempted  provision  whereby  one  rail¬ 
road  might  lease  or  operate  another  ;  and  you  find  in  the  balance 
of  the  section  provision  whereby  two  or  more  railroads  may  con- 


9 


solidate  and  form  one  corporation.  Thus  were  three  things 
secured.  There  are  other  provisions,  stating  to  what  roads  this 
law  applies,  and  other  restrictions  in  relation  to  the  raising  of 
fares  and  freights.  But  these  three  things  which  I  have  men- 
tioned  were  accomplished  by  the  Colby  bill.  And  the  fourth 
was  the  placing  of  all  the  roads  under  the  control  of  the  railroad 
commissioners,  creating  and  establishing  that  tribunal,  and  in¬ 
vesting  it  with  extraordinary  powers.  These  were  the  four 
general  things  secured  by  that  legislation  of  1883.  And  after 
the  experience  we  have  had  with  it.  I  ask,  Are  you,  as  legislators, 
going  to  turn  your  faces  backward?  or  are  you  going  to  carry 
this  state  along  with  the  other  states  of  the  Union,  leaving  all 
these  matters  to  general  legislation,  and  not  requiring  special 
legislation  in  these  particular  instances?  There  has  been  noth¬ 
ing  worthy  the  name  of  an  argument  given  for  making  this  re¬ 
turn  back  to  the  old  policy  and  to  the  old  wavs. 

You  have  two  bills  before  you  for  your  consideration.  One  is 
the  Hazen  bill,  one  is  known  as  the  Atherton  bill.  What  is  the 
Hazen  bill?  I  am  not  going  to  detain  you  long,  because  Judge 
Foster  has  analyzed  it,  and  given  you,  perhaps,  a  better  exposi¬ 
tion  of  all  its  provisions  than  I  am  capable  of  doing.  But  that 
bill,  gentlemen,  is  a  general  law.  It  is  a  law  brought  into  ex¬ 
istence,  or  introduced  here,  for  the  purpose  of  amending  or 
perfecting  the  Colby  bill.  That  is  substantially  all  there  is  to  it. 

Amend  the  Colby  bill  by  the  passage  of  this  Hazen  bill,  and 
then  you  have  given  any  two  roads  that  come  within  the  provi¬ 
sions  of  that  bill,  if  two  thirds  of  their  stockholders,  at  a  meeting 
duly  called  and  holden  for  that  purpose,  vote  to  unite,  the  power 
to  do  so.  Amend  the  Colby  bill  by  passing  the  Hazen  bill,  and 
let  the  corporations  unite  under  it  according  to  its  terms, — and 
the  value  of  the  stock  of  the  dissenting  stockholders  is  to  be  ap¬ 
praised  and  paid  to  them  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill, — and 
I  do  not  know  any  reason  why  any  railroad  coming  within  the 
provisions  of  the  Colby  bill  cannot  be  leased  or  united  under  it. 
That  is  the  fact,  as  I  understand  it. 

Then,  if  that  perfects  the  Colby  bill  and  makes  its  applica¬ 
tion  general,  as  it  does,  why  is  not  that  all  that  this  legislature 
is  required  to  pass?  Why  is  it  not  all  that  anybody  interested 
in  the  railroads  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  should  ask  for, 
and  whv  is  it  not  something  they  should  be  satisfied  with? 


10 


The  Atherton  bill  is  a  different  bill.  And  here  is  a  thing  that 
just  occurs  to  me:  Under  the  Hazen  bill  a  two-thirds  vote  is 
required  to  unite  or  to  lease  corporations.  Under  the  Atherton 
bill,  on  the  other  hand,  a  majority  of  the  stockholders  present 
and  voting  can  unite  the  two  corporations.  Now,  is  there  any 
reason  whv  that  should  be  changed?  We  do  not  ask  for  an v 
such  change.  We  are  willing  to  stand  where  the  Colby  bill  left 
us  with  these  amendments,  and  not  permit  the  union,  and  not 
ask  to  unite  two  corporations,  upon  the  bare  vote  of  a  major¬ 
ity  of  the  stock.  We  think  that  an  enterprise,  or  a  purpose,  or 
an  object  of  that  kind  should  be  able  to  commend  itself  to  the 
judgment  and  to  the  support  of  two  thirds  of  the  stockholders 
present  and  voting  upon  it. 

Now,  sir,  this  Atherton  bill  proposes — what?  I  am  not  go¬ 
ing  through  with  the  details  of  it,  but  I  am  satisfied,  gentlemen, 
if  you  give  the  provisions  of  that  bill  your  careful  attention  and 
examination,  that  the  intelligent,  level-headed  business  men  of 
this  house  never  will  give  it  their  sanction  or  their  approval,  by 
a  vote  either  in  the  house  or  in  the  committee.  The  Hazen  bill 
is  general  in  its  provisions.  It  is  not  restricted  in  its  applica¬ 
tion.  It  applies  anywhere  and  to  all  roads  which  can  bring 
themselves  within  the  terms  of  the  original  Colbv  bill.  But  the 
Atherton  bill  is  narrow  and  restricted.  It  is  passed  fora  single 
purpose,  and  that  is  to  allow  the  Concord,  the  Nashua  &  Low¬ 
ell,  and  the  Boston.  Concord  &  Montreal  roads,  any  two  of 
them  that  physically  connect,  to  unite  and  form  a  unit. 

Now  let  me  put  this  question  to  you  right  here,  gentlemen  : 
If  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad,  and  the  Concord 
Railroad,  and  the  Nashua  &  Lowell  Railroad  want  to  unite  and 
form  a  union  to  consolidate  their  roads  into  one  corporation, 
will  you  tell  me  why  they  cannot  do  it  under  the  Colby  bill  as  it 
stands  to-day?  No  railroad  has  attempted  to  try  a  consolida¬ 
tion  under  the  Colby  bill.  That  provides  for  a  consolidation 
and  a  union.  Why  cannot  that  be  done  to-day,  and  why  could 
it  not  have  been  done  any  day  since  the  Colby  bill  received  the 
sanction  of  the  governor  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  if  these 
roads  by  a  two-thirds  vote  had  been  willing  to  have  been  con¬ 
solidated  and  united  into  one?  It  means  something  beyond 
that,  gentlemen.  It  means  that  these  roads  shall  have  the  right 


11 


to  unite  and  form  one  corporation,  and  lease  certain  other  lines 
that  connect  with  them,  and  bn}7  certain  other  roads  that  the 
Concord  Railroad  owns,  to  form  a  Central  svstem  in  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  under  one  control ;  that  no  other  railroad  in 
this  state  shall  be  granted  such  privileges  or  have  bestowed 
upon  it  such  extraordinary  powers.  That  is  what  this  Atherton 
bill  means. 

But  it  means  even  more,  gentlemen.  It  means  that  no  rail¬ 
road  in  this  state — for  this  is  what  the  sixteenth  section  says, — 
“  No  railroad  in  this  state  shall  unite  with  or  be  leased  or  op¬ 
erated  by  any  railroad  that  is  wholly  or  partly  out  of  the  state, 
unless  specially  authorized  thereto  by  this  or  some  subsequent 
act  of  the  legislature.” 

What  would  be  the  effect  of  that  decision  upon  certain  roads 
that  are  operated  by  the  Eastern  road,  or  are  operated  bv  the 
Boston  &  Maine  road?  “  No  railroad  in  this  state  shall  unite 
with,  or  be  leased  to,  or  be  operated  by,  auv  railroad  that  is 
wholly  or  partly  without  the  state,”  no  matter  when  these  leases 
were  made  ;  no  matter  whether  they  received  the  sanction  of 
the  railroad  commissioners,  or  of  the  governor  and  council,  or  of 
the  legislature.  They  cannot  be  continued,  and  such  a  railroad 
cannot  operate  such  leased  lines,  except  under  this  particular 
act,  or  under  the  authority  of  some  subsequent  legislature. 

Then  take  the  next  clause  :  “  So  much  of  the  act  passed  Sep¬ 
tember  14,  1883,  entitled  4  An  act  providing  for  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  railroad  corporations  by  general  law,’  as  is  inconsistent 
with  this  act,  and  all  other  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act,  are 
hereby  repealed.”  Now  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  the  legal 
and  practical  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  law  and  the  adoption 
of  these  provisions  ;  but  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  as  men  of  intelli¬ 
gence  and  integrity,  before  that  bill  receives  your  sanction  or 
approval, — I  ask  you  to  examine  it  carefully,  and  see  to  what  the 
passage  of  that  bill  with  those  sections  contained  in  it  would 
lead. 

But  that  is  not  all.  After  this  corporation  is  formed,  what 
can  it  do?  4i  Such  new  corporation  may  lease,  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  ninety-nine  years,  the  road,  property,  and  franchises 
of  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad,  and  of  any  of  the  cor¬ 
porations  named  in  the  first  section  of  this  act,  not  forming  a 


12 


new  corporation,  and  also  of  any  of  the  corporations  whose 
roads  are  leased  to  or  are  operated  by  either  of  the  corporations 
forming  the  new  corporation  which  have  not  availed  themselves 
of  the  provisions  of  section  two  upon  such  terms  as  may  be 
mutually  agreed  upon  by  votes  of  a  majority  in  the  interest  of 
the  stockholders  of  the  lessor  and  lessee  corporations  present 
and  voting  at  meetings  duly  notified  and  holden  for  that  purpose  ; 
and  such  new  corporation  shall ,  within  one  year  after  its  forma¬ 
tion,  take  a  lease  for  a  term  of  ninety-nine  years  of  all  the  rail- 
roads,  branches,  equipments,  railroad  property,  and  franchises 
of  the  Northern  Railroad,  the  Concord  &  Claremont  (New 
Hampshire)  Railroad,  and  the  Peterborough  &  Hillsborough 
Railroad,  including  all  rolling-stock,  equipment,”  etc.  It  is 
made  compulsory  upon  them,  in  case  these  corporations  should 
yote  to  unite. 

But  when  you  pass  this  bill,  gentlemen,  you  are  going  to  con¬ 
solidate  the  North  Weare  with  this  corporation.  Who  owns  the 
North  Wqare  ?  The  Concord  Railroad.  They  are  the  lessor,  if 
they  are  going  to  lease  ;  they  are  the  lessor  and  the  lessee,  rep¬ 
resenting  both  parties  to  the  trade.  If  they  are  going  to  con¬ 
solidate,  then  they  represent  both  parties  to  the  consolidation, 
or  there  is  but  one  party. 

Take  the  Acton  road.  The  Concord  Railroad  own  the  con¬ 
trolling  interest  in  the  stock  of  that  road,  and  they  own  sub¬ 
stantially  all  the  indebtedness — fiye  hundred  thousand  dollars  in 
the  capital  stock,  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  indebtedness. 
The  Concord  Railroad  own  that  to-day.  Under  this  bill  they 
are  authorized  to  buy  that,  if  sold  at  public  auction  or  in  any 
other  wav,  and  to  lease  and  to  operate  the  road  ;  that  is,  they 
are  substantially  authorized  to  buy  their  own  property,  and  then 
lease  it  to  their  own  corporation.  That  is  not  all.  They  are 
authorized,  also,  to  consolidate  or  to  unite  with  or  to  lease  the 
Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad.  Who  owns  that  road, 
or  the  controlling-  interest  in  its  stock?  A  syndicate  of  gentle- 
men, — eighteen  or  twenty  ;  I  do  not  remember  the  number,  but 
you  have  had  their  names.  Seven  of  them  are  directors  in  the 
Montreal  road,  seven  of  them  are  directors  in  the  Concord  road. 
And  that  syndicate — as  it  has  been  stated  upon  the  floor  of  this 
house,  and  it  has  not  been  denied  and  will  not  be — if  it  is,  I 


13 


want  to  see  the  books  of  the  Concord  Railroad  that  we  have 
called  for — that  syndicate,  composed  of  these  eighteen  or  twenty 
gentlemen,  hold  a  controlling  interest  in  the  stock  of  both  of 
these  roads  ;  and  they  are  to  make  a  lease  to  or  to  consolidate 
with  themselves.  That  is  one  of  the  beauties  of  this  bill. 

The  decision  of  the  court  in  the  Pearson  case  was,  as  you 
know,  that  the  directors  in  the  Northern  and  in  the  Boston,  Con¬ 
cord  &  Montreal,  acting,  also,  as  directors  in  the  Concord  road, 
could  not  legally  act  or  perform  their  duties  in  making  contracts 
between  the  respective  corporations  ;  that  their  position  was 
that  of  trustees  ;  that  they  could  not  act  in  both  capacities  at 
the  same  time,  because  they  were  representing  conflicting  inter¬ 
ests  ;  that,  if  they  w^ere  acting  as  directors  of  the  Concord  road, 
they  should  act  solely  in  the  interest  of  that  road  ;  and  that  the 
Concord  road  was  entitled  to  their  best  judgment  and  their  ac¬ 
tive  efforts.  The  court  said  it  was  improper  for  them  to  hold 
their  position  as  directors  in  the  Northern  road  ;  and  they  went 
out.  But  here  in  this  case,  with  the  full  knowledge  of  every 
gentleman  who  sits  before  me,  with  the  knowledge  of  every 
member  of  the  committee  and  of  every  man  who  has  heard  the 
testimony,  they  propose  by  this  bill  to  unite  these  corporations — 
the  North  Weare,  which  the  Concord  own,  with  the  Concord  ; 
to  purchase  and  lease  the  Acton,  which  the  Concord  already 
own,  and  let  that  come  into  the  union  ;  and  to  unite  with  or 
lease  the  Montreal,  which  this  syndicate  control,  this  syndicate 
controlling  a  majority  of  the  stock  in  both  the  Concord  and  the 
B.,  C.  &  M.  corporations.  Now  I  ask  you  if  there  was  ever 
such  a  bald  proposition  presented  to  a  committee  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture — a  proposition  as  monstrous — with  the  idea  and  expectation 
that  the  committee  would  give  it  their  assent  and  approval. 

There  are  other  provisions  in  that  bill,  gentlemen  ;  and  I  ask 
you  to  read  them  carefully.  The  original  bill,  as  it  stood  at 
first,  contained  a  clause  which  allowed  the  watering  of  stock. 
That  bill  was  drawn  with  care.  It  was  put  in  here  for  some  pur¬ 
pose,  and  it  wras  put  in  with  the  expectation  of  passing  it.  Why 
was  that  stock-jobbing  section  left  in  the  bill  as  presented  to 
you?  When  it  came  to  be  discussed,  to  be  analyzed,  these  gen¬ 
tlemen  amended  their  bill  and  attempted  to  withdraw  that  offen¬ 
sive  section.  But  what  have  they  done?  Have  they  left  it  clear 


14 


that  there  is  to  be  no  stock-watering,  no  stock-jobbing?  Not  to 
my  mind.  They  have  postponed  the  time  when  they  shall  reap 
the  fruits  of  this  legislation,  but  it  is  only  a  postponement.  Let 
them  take  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  under  a  lease  or 
under  a  union,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill;  let  them 
issue  three  kinds  of  preferred  stock  and  their  common  stock — 
this  syndicate  own  some  eight  thousand  shares  of  the  stock, 
some  old,  some  new,  and  some  preferred, — let  them  unite  these 
corporations,  and  what  will  be  the  result?  What,  indeed,  is 
the  purpose?  The  Concord  Railroad  earns  a  large  sum  over  and 
above  its  ten  per  cent.  That  has  been  proved  here  ;  there  can¬ 
not  be  any  question  about  it.  And  they  propose  to  pool  their 
issues,  and  to  take  those  surplus  earnings  of  the  Concord  road, 
over  and  above  the  ten  per  cent,  which  belongs  to  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  which  to-day,  two  millions  of  it,  ought  to 
be  in  the  treasury  of  this  state, — they  propose  to  take  those  sur¬ 
plus  earnings  and  pay  the  debts  that  are  hanging  over  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad,  and  lift  their  preferred  stock, 
their  old  stock,  and  their  new  stock  up  to  a  dividend-paying 
stock,  and  put  thousands  upon  thousands  of  dollars  into  the 
pockets  of  this  syndicate  that  own  that  stock.  [Applause.]  Are 
you  going  to  sanction  that?  They  have  attempted  to  throw 
some  safeguards,  some  provisions,  around  it ;  but  I  ask  you  if 
the  course  I  have  marked  out  will  not  be  pursued.  And  I  ask 
you,  further,  if  that  is  not  the  purpose,  and  if  that  is  not  the 
object,  of  the  men  who  are  pushing  and  urging  this  legislation. 
I  have  nothing  to  say  against  this  syndicate  of  gentlemen,  but  I 
want  to  put  this  inquiry  to  you  :  If  this  syndicate  had  not  been 
organized,  if  it  had  not  bought  up  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Mon¬ 
treal  stock  and  did  not  hold  it  to-day,  and  if  these  gentlemen 
were  not  interested  in  the  Concord  Railroad,  would  they  be  here 
asking  you  to  sanction  and  approve  such  a  bill  as  this  Atherton 
bill,  even  with  its  amendments?  They  would  not  have  been 
heard  from  in  my  judgment,  and  they  would  not  have  been  here. 

While  we  are  on  this  question  of  syndicates,  you  remember 
that  the  other  day,  during  the  progress  of  these  hearings,  Col. 
Sinclair,  without  notice,  without  anv  suggestion  that  he  was  to 
be  called  upon  to  testify,  sitting  here  in  his  seat  in  this  hall,  was 
called  upon  the  witness  stand.  He  was  asked  in  regard  to  his 


15 


transactions  in  relation  to  the  Worcester  &  Nashua  stock.  He 
told  vou  frankly  all  the  connection  he  had  with  it.  But  the 
question  was  put  to  Mr.  Sinclair,  Was  there  not  some  stock  in 
the  treasury  of  the  Nashua  &  Worcester  Railroad?  Yes.  How 
many  shares?  Well,  about  so  many,  and  he  told  the  number — 
4,805.  What  was  done  with  that  stock?  Distributed  pro  rata 
among  the  present  stockholders.  And  then  the  question  was 
asked  if  anybody  paid  anything  for  that  stock.  Mr.  Sinclair 
said  he  did  not  pay  anything  for  that  stock  ;  and  he  did  not  for 
that  special  stock.  But  let  me  put  this  matter  to  you  fairly  : 
The  stock  was  in  the  treasury  of  that  railroad  company,  and 
when  a  man  bought  a  share  of  the  Nashua  &  Worcester  stock, 
he  bought  an  interest  in  that  asset.  The  Manchester  &  North 
Weare  Railroad  is  owned  by  the  Concord  road:  that  is  one  of 
its  assets,  part  and  parcel  of  its  property.  If  I  buy  a  share  of 
the  Concord  Railroad  stock,  I  am  necessarily  entitled  to  my 
proportion  in  all  the  assets  of  that  company.  And  you  see, 
gentlemen,  that  in  this  case  of  the  Nashua  &  Worcester  there 
was  no  earthly  pecuniary  object  to  be  gained  by  making  a  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  stock.  The  stockholders  had  rented  their  road  for 
8250,000,  or  substantially  that.  Now,  if  that  stock  had  been 
cancelled  and  destroyed,  and  never  had  been  issued,  the  rental 
of  the  Worcester  &  Nashua  road  would  have  been  the  same.  It 
would  have  been  the  same  whether  the  stock  was  destroyed  or 
divided.  The  stockholders  would  have  got  the  same  in  either 
case,  for  there  was  the  $250,000  to  be  divided  among  them. 
They  simply  get  a  smaller  per  cent,  of  dividend,  because  they 
own  a  larger  number  of  shares  than  they  otherwise  would.  So 
it  made  no  difference  to  the  public,  and  it  made  no  difference 
whatever  to  the  stockholders,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

But  Mr.  Sinclair  says  that  he  took  counsel  of  the  best  attor¬ 
neys  he  could  find.  I  think  he  stated  that  he  consulted  with  Mr. 

4/ 

Frink,  and  with  General  Stevens,  and  with  lawyers  in  Boston. 
He  consulted  with  the  best  attorneys  he  could  find  in  Massachu¬ 
setts  and  in  this  state  as  to  what  disposition  should  be  made  of 
that  stock,  and  in  the  disposition  that  was  made  of  it  the  advice 
of  those  distinguished  attorneys  was  followed.  Now  let  me 
read  you  an  opinion  : 


16 


Boston,  October  17,  1885. 

Charles  A.  Sinclair ,  President  Worcester ,  Nashua  &  Rochester 

Railroad  Company : 

Dear  Sir  :  At  your  request  I  have  giveu  careful  considera¬ 
tion  to  the  right  of  the  Worcester,  Nashua  &  Rochester  Co.  to 
deal  with  the  4,805  shares  of  its  capital  stock  now  belonging  to 
the  company  and  standing  in  its  name.  I  find  the  shares  in 
question  are  fully  paid,  were  acquired  by  the  company  under 
the  consolidating  statutes  and  agreement  in  1883,  and  are  ex¬ 
pressly  authorized  by  the  special  statutes  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts  and  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  In  my  judgment 
the  company  may  dispose  of  them  either  at  private  sale  or  pub¬ 
lic  auction,  may  distribute  them  as  a  dividend  among  its  stock¬ 
holders,  or  may  cancel  them  on  complying  with  the  statutory 
requirements  for  the  reduction  of  capital. 

Truly  yours,  Richard  Olney. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  was  pretty  safe  counsel  for  Mr.  Sin¬ 
clair,  the  president  of  the  Worcester  &  Nashua  Railroad,  to  act 
upon  ;  that  it  was  pretty  safe  counsel  for  the  directors  of  that 
railroad  to  act  upon  in  the  disposition  of  those  shares  of  stock. 
But  Mr.  Sinclair  did  not  stop  there.  He  wanted  to  fortify  him¬ 
self  and  make  the  matter  sure  beyond  all  question,  so  he  obtain¬ 
ed  an  indorsement  of  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Olney,  which  is  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 


Littleton,  N.  H.,  February  1,  1886. 

I  have  read  the  within  opinion,  and  agree  with  the  legal  con¬ 
clusions  on  the  facts  assumed. 


Harry  Bingham. 


I  do  not  think,  acting  under  the  advice,  as  he  did,  of  such 
eminent  legal  gentlemen,  not  only  in  Massachusetts  but  in  New 
Hampshire,  that  that  action  ought  to  be  brought  up  here  to  the 
injury  and  the  detriment  of  Mr.  Sinclair.  Do  you,  gentlemen? 

I  have  alluded  to  this  syndicate  and  to  these  two  bills,  stating 
that  the  Hazen  bill  is  a  general  law,  and  that  the  other  is  a  spe¬ 
cial  law.  I  have  pointed  out  some  of  its  provisions,  and  if  it 
were  not  for  wearying  your  patience  I  would  like  to  call  your 
attention  to  others  ;  but  that  is  not  necessary.  Now,  I  ask  you 
if  there  has  been  any  reason  given,  from  any  source,  from  any 
man,  why  you  should  approve  of  the  Atherton  bill.  Has  there 


IT 


been  any  reason  given  why  you  should  reverse  the  policy  of  the 
state  in  relation  to  railroads,  adopted  in  1883?  Has  any  reason 
been  assigned  by  anybody?  If  it  has,  it  has  escaped  me.  Has 
there  been  any  reason  given  or  assigned  why  the  Concord  Rail¬ 
road  should  receive  these  extraordinary  powers?  I  have  not 
heard  any.  Is  there  anything  in  the  history  of  that  railroad 
from  the  day  its  charter  was  given  in  1835,  or  from  the  time 
this  railroad  was  completed,  about  1840,  why  these  extraordi¬ 
nary  powers  and  privileges  should  be  conferred  upon  that  cor¬ 
poration  ? 

The  Concord  Railroad  occupies  a  position  in  the  valley  of  the 
Merrimack,  a  rich  valley  with  large  manufacturing  industries. 
It  is  a  road  of  easy  grades  and  easy  curves,  and  can  be  as 
cheaply  and  as  easily  and  as  economically  operated  as  any  rail¬ 
road  in  New  England  or  in  this  country-  Let  me  illustrate  :  An 
engine  on  the  Concord  Railroad  will  haul  down  seventy  cars  as 
easily  as  the  same  engine  will  haul  fifteen  over  the  grades  of 
the  Montreal  Railroad,  or  as  easily  as  that  same  engine  will 
haul  seventeen  cars  over  the  Northern  Railroad  ;  and  in  coming 
back  it  will  haul  fifty  up  as  easily  as  it  will  haul  fifteen  on  the 
Montreal  or  seventeen  on  the  Northern.  That  shows  the  char- 
acter  of  the  two  roads.  Now,  occupying  this  valley,  with  its 
easy  grades,  with  the  cheapness  with  which  it  can  be  operated, 
and  with  the  large  local  traffic  upon  its  lines,  let  me  ask  you 
what  that  railroad  has  done  in  its  whole  history  to  build  up  the 
business  on  the  line  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal,  on  the 
line  of  the  Northern,  on  the  line  of  the  Concord  &  Claremont, 
or  that  of  any  other  road,  except,  perhaps,  the  Suncook  Valley? 
Did  it,  in  the  early  struggles  of  the  Montreal  Railroad,  when  it 
was  wending  its  way  up  into  the  northern  section  of  this  state, 
threading  the  valleys  and  penetrating  the  wilderness  to  bring 
that  large  lumber  country  within  easy  access  of  the  market, — did 
the  Concord  Railroad  at  any  time,  in  the  early  or  in  the  late 
struggles  of  that  Montreal  corporation,  ever  lend  it  a  helping- 
hand  on  any  occasion  or  under  any  circumstances?  If  so,  name 
the  place,  and  the  time  when.  So  of  the  Northern  Railroad,  so  of 
the  Concord  &  Claremont  and  Hillsborough  railroads.  They 
struggled,  and  they  struggled  alone;  they  fought  with  poverty 
and  with  adversity  ;  they  built  their  roads  over  a  rough  and  for- 


18 


bidding  country ;  they  brought  in  the  fruits  of  their  labors  and 
the  fruits  of  their  money,  and  poured  them  into  the  lap  of  this 
Concord  Railroad,  which  has  been  enabled  to  pay  its  ten  per  cent, 
year  after  year,  and  to  purchase  railroads  out  of  its  surplus. 
But  never  in  its  history,  to  mv  knowledge,  has  it  done  anvthino- 
to  aid  these  struggling  roads,  or  to  contribute  in  any  way  to 
sustain  them  and  to  build  them  up. 

Years  ago — and  you  will  find  out  all  about  that  in  the  report 
of  the  commissioners, — years  ago  a  railroad  was  started  from 
Manchester  which  was  intended  to  go  through  Henuiker  and 
Bradford  and  Newport  and  Claremont,  and  to  strike  the  Con¬ 
necticut  river,  thus  making  a  through  line  for  the  business  of 
that  section  of  the  country.  It  became  embarrassed ;  it  became 
substantially  bankrupt.  A  large  amount  of  money  was  lost — 
how  much  I  do  not  know  ;  perhaps  $600,000  or  §800,000,  per¬ 
haps  more.  That  road  was  built  through  to  Henuiker.  When 
it  reached  Henuiker  it  crossed  the  Contoocook  Valley  Railroad, 
and  that  road  ran  six  miles  beyond,  up  into  the  region  of  Hills¬ 
borough.  The  new  road  was  in  competition  with  that  line.  One 
Sabbath  day  a  train  of  cars,  bearing  laboring  men  with  picks 
and  shovels  and  all  the  implements  that  section-men  use,  passed 
through  Manchester  up  on  the  North  Weare,  and  they  devoted 
that  day  to  tearing  up  six  or  seven  miles  of  this  new  railroad  ; — 
the  connection  was  broken,  and  it  has  remained  broken  from  that 
day  to  this.  What  has  been  the  result?  The  freight  and  pas¬ 
sengers  from  that  whole  section  of  country,  instead  of  going 
direct  to  Henuiker  and  down  over  the  North  Weare  Railroad  to 
Manchester,  a  distance  of  perhaps  thirty  miles,  have  been 
brought  around  through  Concord  and  carried  the  entire  distance 
over  the  Concord  Railroad,  and  been  obliged  to  pay  tribute  to 
that  railroad.  Who  did  that?  It  was  done  bv  the  manager  of 
the  Concord  Railroad.  Was  it  done  in  the  interest  of  that  road? 
I  do  uot  know  what  their  records  show  ;  but  the  fact  is,  it  was 
done  by  the  manager  of  that  road,  and  it  resulted  in  benefit  to 
that  road  by  giving  it  the  long  haul  from  that  section  of  the 
country  on  all  the  passengers  and  all  the  freight ;  and  ultimate¬ 
ly  the  North  Weare  Railroad  finds  itself  in  the  hands  and  in 
the  control  of.  and  the  property  of.  the  Concord  Railroad,  which 
holds  it  to-day. 


19 


Now,  that  is  not  all.  How  has  this  Concord  Railroad  oper¬ 
ated  in  connection  with  certain  other  railroads?  Let  me  call 
your  attention  to  these  facts, — and  this  all  bears  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  this  road  has  done  anything  to  entitle  it  to  receive 
these  great  privileges  which  are  asked  in  its  behalf.  A  railroad 
was  built  from  Manchester  to  Lawrence,  a  competing  line 
through  that  section  in  connection  with  the  Boston  &  Maine  to 
Boston.  In  1860  a  contract  was  entered  into  between  the  Con¬ 
cord  Railroad  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad,  where¬ 
by  competition  was  destroyed  and  the  two  roads  were  run  as 
one  corporation.  Previous  to  the  formation  of  that  contract 
business  from  the  upper  roads  had  been  divided,  and  had  gone 
to  Boston  both  ways.  People  had  the  choice  of  the  routes 
through  to  Boston,  either  by  the  way  of  Lawrence  and  by  the 
Boston  &  Maine,  or  bv  the  wav  of  the  Concord,  Nashua  & 
Lowell  and  Boston  &  Lowell.  As  a  result  of  the  contract  of 
1860,  freight  and  passengers  were  diverted  from  the  Manchester 
&  Lawrence  and  sent  down  the  other  way.  Another  contract 
was  made  between  the  Boston  &  Lowell,  the  Nashua  &  Lowell, 
and  the  Concord  railroads,  whereby  substantially  all  the  freight 
for  Boston  was  sent  by  Lowell.  The  people  became  indignant. 
They  came  here  to  the  legislature  and  appealed  to  the  house  and 
senate  for  the  passage  of  what  is  known  as  the  anti-monopoly  act ; 
and  the  legislature  of  1867  passed  that  law,  breaking  up  such 
combinations,  making  it  criminal  to  continue  them  and  to  carry 
them  on.  But  the  thing  kept  on  as  before,  and  Mr.  Currier 
brought  a  bill  in  equity  to  restrain  the  Concord  road  from  oper¬ 
ating  in  that  way.  Now  here  is  what  Judge  Bellows  says  about 
the  bill : 

The  object  of  the  bill  is  to  obtain  an  injunction  to  restrain 
the  consolidation  of  the  two  roads  (Concord  and  Manchester  & 
Lawrence),  to  prevent  their  being  operated  in  such  way  as  to 
avoid  competition.  It  alleges  that  they  are  rival  or  competing 
roads,  but  that  to  prevent  competition  an  arrangement  was 
made  between  the  roads  in  December,  1860,  to  commence  De¬ 
cember  1,  1861,  to  continue  twenty  years,  by  which  the  two 
roads  were  consolidated,  and  made  to  share  equally  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  their  capital  stock  in  the  joint  earnings  of  the  two  roads 
Tand  this  way  they  divide  now],  and  the  sole  control  of  the  Man¬ 
chester  &  Lawrence  Railroad  placed  in  the  control  of  the  Con¬ 
cord  road. 


20 


It  alleges  that  this  contract  was  in  violation  of  the  charters 
of  both  roads  ;  that  afterwards,  in  January,  1865,  the  Concord 
road  made  a  contract  with  the  Nashua  &  Lowell  Railroad  and 
the  Boston  &  Lowell  Railroad,  bv  which  all  through  business 
was  diverted  from  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad. 

The  bill  then  recites  the  law  of  July  5,  1867,  to  prevent 
railroad  monopolies,  and  charges  that  notwithstanding  this  act, 
the  two  railroads  have  substantially  continued  their  connection, 
and  have  thus  continued  the  consolidation  and  have  prevented 
the  competition  which  the  law  was  designed  to  procure.  The 
bill  asks  for  an  injunction  and  other  relief. 

That  is  what  the  bill  sets  forth.  That  is  the  complaint  which 
this  bill  made.  Now  let  us  see  what  Judge  Bellows  finds.  He 
savs, — 

The  first  question  in  the  natural  order  of  inquiry  is,  whether 
the  Concord  Railroad  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad 
are  rival  or  competing  lines  of  route  within  the  meaning  of  the 
act  passed  July  5,  1867,  entitled  ‘An  act  to  prevent  railroad 
monopolies. 9 

That  is  the  first  question.  Then  he  goes  on  and  states  what 
has  been  proved,  and  his  answer  is  this  : 

We  are  therefore  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  these  rail¬ 
roads  must  be  regarded  as  parts  of  rival  and  competing  lines, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute. 

That  is  his  first  finding  upon  the  first  question.  Continuing, 
he  savs, — 

The  next  question  is,  whether  by  some  existing  arrange¬ 
ment  or  contract  between  the  two  railroads  they  have  been  con¬ 
solidated,  or  one  of  said  railroads  has  been  run  or  operated  by 
the  other,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  before  cited. 

He  discusses  the  evidence  upon  that  question,  states  what  is 
proved  and  by  whom,  and  in  answer  to  the  second  inquiry  he 
savs, — 

The  conclusion  is  therefore  inevitable,  that  the  two  railroads 
were  operated  after  August  1,  1867,  substantially  as  they  were 
before,  upon  an  arrangement  that,  according  to  their  understand¬ 
ing  and  expectations,  would  give  them  an  equal  interest  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  their  capital  stock  in  the  earnings  of  both  roads,  and 
made  their  interests,  in  fact,  identical. 


21 


That  is  the  second  finding.  The  third  question  was  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

Whether  the  agreement  between  the  two  roads  of  December 
27,  1860,  was  valid,  and  if  so,  whether  it  remained  valid  after 
the  law  of  July  5,  1867,  so  as  to  justify  a  continuance  of  these 
connections  formed  under  it. 

The  answer  to  that  is, — 

Upon  the  whole,  we  think  it  unquestionable  that  by  this 
agreement,  if  valid,  the  Concord  road  would  acquire  a  right  to 
the  use  of  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  road,  within  the  meaning 
of  section  eight  in  the  law  of  1850  ;  and  therefore,  as  the  con¬ 
tract  was  for  more  than  five  years,  and  was  not  sanctioned  in 
writing  by  the  railroad  commissioners  and  approved  by  the  gov¬ 
ernor  and  council,  it  comes  within  the  prohibition  of  that  sec¬ 
tion. 

That  is  the  third  finding  ;  and  his  last  conclusion,  the  conclu¬ 
sion  of  the  whole  matter,  is, — 

We  are  therefore  prepared  to  go  so  far  as  this  :  To  decree 
that  the  Concord  and  Manchester  &  Lawrence  railroads  are 
rival  and  competing  lines  of  road  within  the  meaning  of  the  law 
to  prevent  railroad  monopolies  passed  July  5,  1867,  and  that 
the  running  of  those  roads  in  the  way  and  manner  they  have 
been  run,  both  before  and  since  August  1,  1877,  is  a  violation 
of  the  provisions  of  that  act,  and  should  be  restrained  by 
injunction,  unless  justified  under  the  contract  of  December  27, 
1860  ;  and  for  the  reasons  we  have  assigned  we  think  it  cannot 
be. 

We  have  thought  proper  to  announce  these  views,  although 
the  Lowell  line  of  roads  is  not  brought  in,  because  we  are  unable 
to  conceive  that  different  views  could  be  presented  if  they  had 
been  made  parties,  and  because  of  the  delay  in  interposing  this 
objection.  We  are  inclined,  however,  to  defer  making  the  final 
decree  till  those  parties  are  brought  in,  that  more  complete  jus¬ 
tice  may  be  done. 


Now  this  is  not  the  random  statement  of  the  hired  attorney  of 
the  Boston  <k  Maine,  or  of  any  other  railroad  ;  it  is  not  an 
extract  from  the  newspapers,  which  are  prolific  with  railroad 
discussions  and  with  railroad  advice  ;  but  it  is  the  deliberate 
findings  and  conclusions  of  Judge  Bellows — and  a  more  honest 
man  in  my  judgment  than  that  man  never  drew  the  breath  of 


99 


life.  After  a  full  and  fair  and  exhaustive  examination  of  the 
whole  question,  he  makes  the  three  findings  and  conclusions 
that  I  have  read  to  you.  And  I  say  to  you  here  now,  that  the 
contract  under  which  the  Concord  Railroad  operated  the  Man¬ 
chester  &  Lawrence  was, — first,  in  violation  of  the  principles  of 
the  common  law  ;  second,  it  was  in  plain  and  palpable  violation, 
as  Judge  Bellows  has  found,  of  the  auti-monopoly  act  of  July 
5,  1867  ; — and  they  so  continued  to  run  the  road,  under  that 
same  management,  in  violation  of  the  common  law,  in  violation 
of  the  statute  of  1867,  and  in  defiance  and  disregard  of  the 
deliberate  findings  and  judgment  of  the  court,  until  it  was  taken 
out  of  their  hands  bv  the  syndicate  that  bought  it.  And  there- 
fore  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  with  that  record  and  with  those 
facts  before  you,  this  road  is  not  in  a  condition  to  come  here  as 
the  guardian  of  the  public,  and  ask  you  to  confer  upon  it  these 
great  privileges  and  these  extraordinary  powers. 

That  is  uot  all.  They  made  the  contract  of  1865  with  the 
Boston  &  Lowell  Railroad  :  I  have  not  time  to  read  it,  but  it 
is  in  the  case.  What  was  that  contract?  They  made  an  ar¬ 
rangement  whereby  all  the  freight  over  their  line,  from  the  con¬ 
necting  lines  at  the  north,  should  be  sent  to  Boston  bv  wav  of 
the  Nashua  &  Lowell  and  Boston  &  Lowell ;  and  thev  were  to 
pay  the  same  rates  that  were  paid  to  them  for  the  transportation 
of  passengers  and  freight  from  the  Northern  Railroad,  under  a 
contract  made  with  the  Northern,  I  think,  the  year  previous. 
I  have  all  the  contracts  here,  but  I  cannot  stop  to  read  them 
now.  The  contract  between  the  Nashua,  Boston  &  Lowell  and 
the  Nashua  &  Lowell  railroads  and  the  Concord  Railroad,  dated 
the  21st  day  of  January,  1865,  contained  this  provision  for  set¬ 
tlements  between  the  roads  : 

Article  9.  For  the  transportation  of  the  business  aforesaid 
over  the  roads  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  the  distance  from 
the  Concord  Railroad  station  at  Nashua  to  Boston  shall  be 
reckoned,  for  the  purpose  of  this  contract,  as  twenty-six  miles. 

The  actual  distance  was  thirty-nine  miles,  but  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  this  contract  it  was  to  be  called  twenty-six  miles,  and 
the  business  was  done  under  it  from  1865  down  to  1876,  when 
it  was  terminated  by  the  Boston  &  Lowell  and  Nashua  &  Low- 


28 


ell  railroads.  While  that  contract  was  under  negotiation,  when 
the  preliminary  contract  or  agreement  had  been  signed,  it 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Boston  &  Maine,  and  of  the 
Northern,  and  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal,  what  this 
railroad  proposed  to  do.  They  went  to  Mr.  Gilmore  and  to  Mr. 
Upham,  the  manager  and  president  of  the  Concord  Railroad 
Corporation,  and  protested  in  the  name  of  their  corporations, 
and  of  their  stockholders,  and  of  the  public,  against  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  a  contract  of  that  kind,  because  under  it,  while  the  upper 
roads  were  to  pay  for  thirty-nine  miles,  the  Concord  road  was 
to  pay  for  twenty-six  miles  of  constructive  mileage.  But  these 
upper  roads  had  the  assurance — and  that  appears  in  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Mr.  Dodge,  and  of  the  other  witnesses,  taken  in  the 
Pearson  suit,  and  which  we  may  put  before  you  before  this  case 
closes, — these  upper  roads  had  a  distinct  agreement  with  Mr. 
Gilmore  and  Mr.  Upham  (Mr.  Gilmore  in  particular,  but  Mr. 
Upham  was  present  and  some  of  the  directors),  that  if  they 
would  withdraw  their  opposition  and  let  the  contracts  go  on, 
they  should  be  made  just  as  well  off  as  they  would  be  if  the 
contract  never  had  been  executed ;  and  they  went  to  their 
homes  relying  on  the  good  faith  of  the  president  and  the  super¬ 
intendent  of  the  Concord  road. 

But  what  was  the  result?  The}7  made  their  monthly  statement 
of  losses  which  those  roads  sustained  by  operating  under  that 
contract ;  they  presented  them,  and  continued  to,  from  1865 
down  to  1877.  They  have  never  been  paid  ;  they  are  due  to¬ 
day.  And  what  did  the  Northern  road,  and  what  did  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  road,  lose  by  that  operation?  The 
testimony  of  Mr.  Dodge  has  been  put  in,  in  which  he  tells  you 
their  accounts  amount  to  $130,000  during  that  period  of  twelve 
years.  I  have  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Simons  before  me. 

Int.  7.  How  much  more  was  charged  to  and  paid  by  the 
Northern  Railroad  upon  this  business  done  via  Lowell,  from 
June  1,  1865,  to  October  1,  1877,  than  would  have  been  paid 
by  the  Northern  Railroad  and  the  Concord  &  Claremont  Rail¬ 
road  upon  similar  business  from  those  roads  done  by  the  way  of 
the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  and  Boston  &  Maine  roads  before 
June  1,  1865,  and  from  June  1,  1865,  to  October  1,  1877? 

Ans.  $117,041.70. 


24 


That  is  only  one  road.  Mr.  Simons  gives  the  number  of 
passengers  and  the  number  of  tons  of  freight,  and  the  losses 
upon  the  Concord  &  Claremont  and  the  losses  upon  the  North¬ 
ern — it  will  all  he  put  before  you  in  print  so  you  can  have  it 
before  the  close  of  this  hearing  ;  and  the  result  is  that  there  was 
$117,000  due  the  Northern  road  and  $130,000  due  the  Montreal 
road,  making  $247,041.70  which  was  unjustly^,  illegally,  and 
unlawfully  taken  out  of  those  roads,  and  which  found  its  way 
into  the  treasury  of  the  Concord  Railroad.  Those  are  the 
claims  which  have  been  spoken  of  ;  and  the  operation  of  those 
contracts,  I  understand,  is  the  reason  why  Mr.  Lyon  and  Gov¬ 
ernor  Stearns  bought  their  interest  in  the  Concord  stock.  It 
was  to  protect  their  own  roads  from  the  avarice  and  grasping 
disposition  of  the  Concord.  The  Concord  road  la}7  at  the  mouth 
of  their  roads  ;  every  passenger  coming  through,  and  every  ton 
of  freight,  had  to  pass  over  that  road  on  its  way  to  Boston  ; 
and  they  bought  that  stock  in  order  to  get  control  of  the  road 
so  that  they  might  make  more  favorable  terms  for  their  own 
roads. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  matter  has  been  investigated  by  Judge 
Blodgett,  and  I  have  his  report  upon  the  facts  here.  I  cannot 
stop  to  read  it  all,  but  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  some 
things  in  it : 

For  some  time  prior  to  1865,  the  business  of  the  Concord 
Railroad  from  Manchester  and  above,  the  business  of  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  road,  and  of  the  Concord  &  Clare¬ 
mont  and  Contoocook  roads,  was  sent  to  Boston  by  way  of  the 
Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  while  the  business  of  the  Northern, 
Passumpsic,  and  other  connecting  roads  was  sent  to  Boston  over 
the  Nashua  &  Lowell  and  Boston  &  Lowell  roads.  The  induce¬ 
ment  the  Concord  Railroad  had  to  send  the  business  by  way  of 
Lawrence  consisted  in  the  fact  that  it  then  practically  owned 
and  controlled  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  road,  which  termi¬ 
nated  within  twenty-six  (26)  miles  of  Boston  ;  whereas,  the 
Concord  road  properly  terminated  at  Nashua,  thirty-nine  miles 
from  Boston.  So  that  the  Concord  road  had  to  pay  out  in  the 
one  case  for  transportation  thirteen  (13)  miles  more  than  in  the 
other. 

The  disadvantages  of  seuding  business  bv  way  of  Lawrence 
consisted  in  the  facts  of  the  heavy  grades  on  the  Manchester  & 
Lawrence  road  as  compared  with  the  almost  level  grades  on  the 
other  lines,  and  in  the  diversion  of  business,  especially  freight. 


25 


The  rates  charged  by  the  Boston  &  Maine  were  considerably 
less  than  those  charged  by  the  Boston  &  Lowell,  but  the  latter 
charged  the  same  rates  to  the  Concord  road  which  were  paid  by 
the  upper  roads.  In  September  or  October,  1864,  a  conference 
was  had  between  the  Concord  road  and  the  Boston  &  Lowell 
road,  at  which  a  preliminary  agreement  was  executed,  by  which 
the  Concord  road  agreed  to  concentrate,  so  far  as  practicable, 
all  the  business  from  Manchester  and  above,  including  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  the  connecting  roads  over  the  N.  &  L.  and  the  B.  &.  L. 
line,  and  in  consideration  thereof  that  line  agreed  to  do  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  the  Concord  road  proper  at  two-third  rates,  or  what  was 
equivalent  to  it,  to  reckon  the  distance  from  Nashua  to  Boston 
at  twenty-six  miles  for  the  Concord  business  and  thirty-nine 
miles,  the  actual  distance,  for  the  business  of  the  upper  roads. 

TVhen  the  fact  of  this  preliminary  agreement  became  public, 
strenuous  opposition  to  its  ratification  was  made  by  the  Boston 
&  Maine  road,  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  and  Northern 
roads,  and  by  the  Concord  &  Claremont  road.  Finally  the  op¬ 
position  of  the  upper  roads  was  withdrawn  upon  the  promise  of 
Mr.  Gilmore,  who  was  manager  of  the  Concord  road,  that  he 
would  make  it  just  as  well  for  the  upper  roads  as  though  the 
contract  was  not  executed  ;  and  it  was  thereupon  executed  and 
went  into  effect  January  21,  1865. 

About  1859  the  quintuple  contract  was  made,  which  continued 
in  force  until  the  adoption  of  the  contract  of  1865. 

It  was  a  contract  made  bv  the  Boston  &  Maine,  Manehes- 
ter  &  Lawrence,  Concord,  Nashua  &  Lowell,  and  Boston  &  Low¬ 
ell  roads,  and  related  to  the  division  of  business  at  Manchester 
and  points  above  between  the  two  lines,  the  Lowell  line  and  the 
Lawrence  line.  Under  this  agreement  the  business  of  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  and  Northern  roads  was  mostly  forced 
over  the  Lowell  line,  but  it  was  more  favorable  to  the  upper 
roads  than  the  contract  of  1865. 

The  effect  of  the  contract  of  January  2,  1865,  was  substan¬ 
tially  to  close  all  avenues  from  the  Concord  road  to  the  Boston 
•/ 

business  of  the  upper  roads,  except  that  by  the  Lowell  line,  which 
thereupon  advanced  its  rates  aucl  demanded  and  took  of  the 
Northern  and  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  roads  higher  rates 
than  those  existing  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made. 

He  finds  the  amount  that  those  roads  were  injured,  and  he 
gives  as  the  total  $229,470.65.  Continuing,  he  says, — “  The 
rates  charged  the  upper  roads  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid  con- 


26 


tract  of  1865,  resulting  from  the  combination  of  the  Concord 
road  with  the  Lowell  line,  was  unjust  and  oppressive  to  those 
roads,  their  stockholders,  and  the  general  public  doing  business 
thereon.”  There  are  other  findings  in  the  report  to  which,  if  I 
had  the  time,  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention.  They  are  the 
findings  of  another  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  this 
state  upon  the  character  of  the  contract  entered  into  in  1865, 
and  as  to  the  injuries  that  these  upper  roads  suffered  in  conse¬ 
quence  thereof. 

Now  let  me  go  a  little  further.  What  advantage  was  it  to  the 
Concord  road?  In  the  answer  in  the  bill  in  equity,  which  was 
put  in  the  other  day,  it  is  stated  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell 
transported  under  the  contract  611,809  passengers,  and  559,489 
tons  of  freight ;  that  the  Concord  Railroad  paid  for  passengers 
8318,664.66  and  for  freight  under  that  contract  8450,839.02, 
making  a  total  of  8769,503.68.  That  was  reckoned  at  26  miles 
for  haulage  of  39.  Now  if  the  Concord  Railroad  had  paid  for  a 
haulage  of  39  miles,  the  actual  haulage,  they  would  have  paid 
81,154,255.52  ;  that  is,  they  made  out  of  that  operation,  by  the 
reduction  of  the  charges  upon  their  own  business,  paying  for  26 
miles  instead  of  39,  8384,751.84.  Now,  let  me  ask  you,  where  did 
all  this  money  come  from?  Out  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Boston, 
Concord  &  Montreal,  the  Concord  &  Claremont,  and  the  North¬ 
ern?  No,  not  out  of  them.  It  was  a  tax  upon  the  business 
and  upon  the  passengers  along  the  lines  of  those  three  roads 
and  all  their  branches.  It  was  a  tax  which  Judge  Blodgett 
finds  was  unjust  to  the  stockholders,  unjust  to  the  roads,  and 
unjust  to  the  people  along  the  lines  of  these  roads. 

Is  there  anything  in  its  management,  gentlemen,  that  com¬ 
mends  the  Concord  Railroad  to  your  sympathy  and  your  consid¬ 
eration  ?  Is  there  anything  in  that  which  shows  that  they  should 
be  invested  with  these  privileges  and  granted  these  extraordi¬ 
nary  powers?  Will  you  put  the  business  of  northern  New 
Hampshire,  of  the  section  of  the  state  along  the  line  of  the 
Montreal,  and  of  the  Northern,  and  of  the  Concord  &  Clare¬ 
mont,  and  of  the  Hillsboro’,  under  the  control  of  a  manage¬ 
ment  such  as  the  courts  of  this  state  say,  after  full  investigation 
and  full  deliberation,  they  find  the  management  of  this  Concord 
road  is?  I  hope  not.  I  do  not  believe  you  will,  gentlemen.  I 


think  you  will  take  the  wise  and  sensible  view  of  the  ques¬ 
tions  that  are  before  you  ;  that  you  will  continue  the  system 
attempted  to  be  established  in  1883  ;  that  you  will  amend  and 
perfect  the  Colby  bill,  make  it  what  it  should  be,  and  you  will 
leave  the  railroads  of  this  state  to  work  out  their  own  salvation 
under  the  provisions  of  that  bill  as  amended.  I  do  not  believe 
you  will  sanction  and  approve  and  indorse  the  extraordinary 
legislation  asked  for  by  the  Atherton  bill. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  are  a  thousand  things  I  would  like  to 
talk  about,  but  your  patience  will  be  exhausted,  and  mine  also. 
There  are  a  thousand  things  afloat  in  the  air  to  mystify  this 
issue,  to  mislead  the  members  of  this  House,  to  prejudice  your 
minds  against  this  Hazen  bill,  and  to  warp  your  judgment — a 
thousand  things  that  have  nothing  to  do  whatever  with  the  ques¬ 
tions  which  you  are  to  consider,  and  which  you  are  to  pass  upon. 
Remember,  gentlemen,  that  this  legislation  is  of  the  gravest  im¬ 
portance.  It  is  legislation  which,  if  perfected  as  it  should  be,  will 
continue  after  you  and  I  have  passed  away.  It  is  legislation 
which  will  continue  the  system  adopted  in  the  Colby  bill,  per¬ 
fecting  that  bill  as  its  defects  may  be  discovered,  and  resulting 
in  untold  benefits  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

You  have  been  urged  not  to  pass  it  because  it  is  advocated  by 
a  foreign  corporation  ;  but  my  brother  Aldrich  knocked  that  idea 
so  far  that  it  has  not  been  heard  from  since  he  closed  his  speech. 
There  are  other  intimations  and  insinuations  thrown  in  here  to 
mislead  and  befog  you  and  the  members  of  the  House.  But  I 
know  that  you  are  gentlemen  of  intelligence  and  of  capacity  ; 
that  you  will  deliberately  weigh  the  provisions  of  both  of  these 
bills  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  will  reach  the  conclusion 
that  I  have — and  that  is  the  right  and  proper  thing  to  do,  the 
thing  that  every  man  interested  in  low  fares  and  low  freights 
along  the  line  of  all  our  roads  wants  you  to  do,  the  thing  that 
nobody  objects  to  your  doing  except  those  who  have  a  personal 
interest  and  personal  ends  to  attain  and  accomplish — viz.,  mod¬ 
ify  or  amend  the  Colby  bill ;  and  that  you  will  continue  for 
years  and  years  the  beneficent  system  of  managing  and  con¬ 
trolling  our  railroads  which  was  adopted  by  the  legislature  of 
1883.  Thanking  you  for  your  attention,  I  leave  the  subject  in 
your  hands. 


28 


Boxford, 


29 


© 

"© 


© 


© 


X 

o 


72 

o 


© 

© 

© 

© 

1) 

43  _ 

-r=  ^ 

43  ^ 

H  v 

©  - 

©  ^ 

©  ^ 

o 

c3  ^ 

pH 

?H 

pH 

r© 

H 

g 

rH 

pH 

© 

g 

3 

o 

3 

o 

43 

H-© 

H3 

X  -r 

x  - 

X  ^* 

-r  O 

X  ^ 

o  ^ 

O  ^ 

O  ^ 

oi 

O  ^ 

M 

pH 

rH 

M 

hH 

o 

■+3 

02 


© 

> 


x 

O 

P.^1 


© 

© 

o 

aJ 

43 

-H>  -  ^ 

-H 

- 

© 

H 

o 

PS 

c5  ^  ~ 

H 

g 

pH 

pH 

PH 

"© 

PH 

pH 

PH 

o 

o 

H-3 

o 

o 

-4-3 

o 

-H 

o 

X 

X  ^  - 

X 

oi 

O 

r.^ 

oi 

O  -  - 

O 

P/H 

^9- 

rH 

§©= 

v*  V* 


© 

ed 


©  o 
©  © 

CO  CO 


o  o 

©  © 

CO  CO 


o  o 

q  q 

cd  cd  cd  cd 


o 

o 


o  q 

cd  cd 


q 

cd 


co 


o 

CO 


o 


q  929$co 

cd  cd  cd  ed  cd  cd  cd 


© 


© 


© 


© 


© 


© 


■fi 

■x 


© 

© 

pH 

© 

5h 

> 


> 

pH 

© 

O 

CO 


e3  m 
cc 

>  © 


O 

•  pH 

H=> 

2 

PH 

pH 

pH 

>"S  v 

rO 

o 

© 


pH 

© 

pH 

o 

X 


r 

rH 

•  © 

AH 

pH 

*  O 

X 

•  ©5 


eg  »  ©  ^ 

^  -a:  53  x 

fe-  ©  :>  © 


> 
’r- 1 
© 
pH 

H 

PH 

o 

X 

T2 

© 

eg 

£ 


o 

© 

o  ^ 

O  r=c 

O 

r>»  ^ 

PH  ~ 

SH 

rP 

rH  •> 

P5  - 

PH  ^ 

©i  2 
5  r2 

43  3 

02 

© 

q  S 

H 

c©  © 

Osj  -* 

fex 

M  4 

^  X 

a 

^  X 

s 

© 

e3 

© 

.2 

>- 

2C 

P' 

>  - 

^  V# 

?  3 

o 

•  pH 

■8  * 

PH 

©  • 

•“S 

>►>  • 

rw  • 

o  °S 
X 

■tS  <3 

r-H  r. 

43  © 

©  Jj 

>•  eg 

p"  X 

© 

•  rH 

5>3 


02 

72 

© 


© 

© 

p4 

pH 

© 

pH 

£ 

g 

H-i 

g 

•  rH 

I> 


x 

X 

eg 


© 

"eg 

X 

eg 

•  rH 


X 

X 

© 


43 

© 


O 

©! 

© 

© 

A  , 


> 

rH 

©  S 


pH  -4-H 

<D>  x 
»-3  S  o 
c2  ^ 

C/} 

g 

•  rH 

P*  3  ** 


o 

•  x 

x 

|| 

<H  © 


©  s 
©  q 

02  rH 

© 

r*  - 

>  ~ 


*  > 

Sh 
© 

*  <- 

o 

'  X 

■  1c 

cc  eg 

X 

©  fe  — 

H  CH 


05 

x 

g 


CD  ^ 

"a 

CO  02 


05 

05  ~ 


g 

s 


0) 


o  O 

r-H  — ' 

O  ' 

•  pH 

53 


X 

X 

X 

g 

v» 

X 

H 

H3 

X 

s 

H 

O 

P, 

o 

■w 

Ec^3 

rs 

H 

X 

©  ?H 

X 

X 

O 

©  O 

D 

o 

H 

P 

X  £ 

r- 

-e  ?n 

X 

© 

ryi 


© 

X  HJ-  72 
©©  05 
V1  rD1  r-r1 


CO 

CO 

g 


O 

v>  ^ 

^  X 

Cw  D) 

r^H  r*H 


X 

X 

g  v- 


P  H} 

O  -P 

-h>  x 
O  Q) 
c/:  o 

II 

c  c^ 


X 

X 

g 


0) 

>• 

g 


X 

X 

g 


r> 

X 


X 
X 

g  ~ 

P-H 

fP**C  *N 

^  a> 

g  *+^ 
o  C 

p  o 

m  Cn 
02  £ 

©  g  ts 
PA  O  i— H 

^  O  32 
~  e© 


r>7  !>"s  r>"s 

,  1  1  ,  "1 


©  -P 

43  X 
X  © 

©  ►> 

ra  S- 


x 

02 

^  v#  V#  ^  ^ 

C3  ^  ^  v#  ^ 

i^= i 

©5 

O 

©3  s _ : 

X 

© 


©  S  © 

„  c  2 

•©  ©  ©  riC  Q2  rH 

|H-  rjH  r^H  ©  r— <  _D 

©  q  r- c  ©  ©rH 
©  ©  ©  ©  ©  © 

HHHH44 


JOINT  LUMBER  TARIFF—  Concluded. 


30 


& 

o 


c fj 

pO 

o 

o 

cT 

co 

o 

t- 

o 

S3 


<x> 

42 

CS 


O 

-*4 

co 

O 

PQ 


o 

42 

ct 


O 

42 

o 

PQ 

o 

> 

o 

© 

© 

^0= 


a> 

4-2 

c3 


O  -  - 

4-2 

m 

O 

PQ 

a) 

o 

c3 


4-2 

<3 


o 

4-2 

GO 

^  (M  (M  5 

&=*mm=£Q 


©  o 

O'  O' 


a> 

4-2 

o3 


ao 

O 

PP 


a3 

-i-s 

ce 


i/2 

o 

pq 

03 

s> 

O 

ro3 

O 

o 


Cl  OI 

mm= 


<v 

-t-3 

ce 


O 

44 

go 

O 

-o 


a 

44 

ce 


O  ~ 

-+3 

CO 

O 

pq 

03  ^ 
>  - 
o 
4 
ce 

G  O 
G  G 

oi  oi 

6^#g= 


03 

44 

ce 

u 


o 

44 

03 

O 

pq 


a> 

44 

Cj 


£ 

o 

43 

CO 

o 

pq 


03 

+3 

ce 


£ 

O 

43 

CC 

O 

pq 


O  4-i 

O 

•q  oj§ 

0.4— 

G 

G 

G 

O 

G 

G  G> 

G 

G 

G 

G  G  G 

G 

G  G 

G  G 

G 

ho.§ 

G 

0 

G 

G 

G 

G 

O 

G  G  G 

O 

G  G 

G  G 

G 

C3 

O 

CO 

Ol 

O}  40 

40 

G 

O 

40  40  cj 

O1 

CO  4 

40  00 

40 

Xj  X1  O 

€©= 

r-H 

t“H 

7-H 

r-i 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

-43  CLi 

43 

s 

• 

# 

#  # 

43 

# 

# 

•  Q  • 

# 

•  03 

# 

r—H 

i - 1 

^H 

- - 1 

►> 

• 

• 

• 

• 

r> 

• 

• 

T  * 

• 

K* 

H 

rn 

* 

rH 

O 

03 

03 

S  ^ 

03 

•  rH  w 

rH 

rH 

H 

G- 

* 

•2  S 

•  r- 

H 

43 

0 

O 

m 

• 

O 

CC 

• 

0  0  . 
01  co 

• 

■s 

£ 

£ 

4-2 

O 

CO 

VI 

Vl 

CO 

>iq  gj  • 

"  r* 

>G> 

rH 

a3 

G- 

rH 

CO 

CO 

ce 

'  ce 

O 

£ 

03 

ce 

•s 

03 

•  ^ 

rrH  s. 

•g 

£3 

O 

ry 

rH 

S 

cT 

aT 

oJ' 

c3 

ps  «e  « 
0  52 

-e  >  ^ 

?P  O  S 
.5  cS  ^ 

c  fi 

H  ^  rH 

- - -  H 

•  HH 

as  ce 

03 

ce  k, 
4  ^ 

O 

"i 

S 

0 

44 

O 

rv^ 

HH 

- 

43 

s 

03 

H3 

a 

S 

a> 

rH 

£ 

- 

s  § 

rT  03 

s  ^ 

03  £ 

O 

pq 

K* 

O 

c 

03 

pH 

- 

- 

^  0 

-pq 

g 

S4 

O 

pH 

42  ~ 

VI 

<X> 

& 

CJD 

rH 

•  rH 

H 

rH 

•  f— ' 

cS 

o3 

rce 

czi  1-4 

•  rH 

ce 

4! 

^  rs 

M  Cj 

CO 

"cS  4 

CC  fGj 

e5 

Cj 

ct 

c3 

c3 

cS 

ce 

►> 

> 

i>-  - 

s# 

> 

03 

03  -  ^ 
C3  ~  - 


& 


go 

03 

r  d  - 


o  r; 


« 

ce 


r  is 
£  «3 


03  03  43 


42  vs 

O  42  .- 

r\  *-*  rt 
h  a  g 

-  r^rrt 

r-<  rH  rH  2" 

' H  H  h  ^ 
O  O  S  J3 

£  £  5=  • 

03  03  03  O 


zn 

00 

ce 

43 

»> 

O 


c3 

Jh 

Y> 

r- —i 

o 


r  £ 


02 

z/i 

ct 

H-1 

tc 


Y> 


C 

4-2 

co 


O 

4-2 

CO 


cx 

0) 

^2 


g  Eh 

43  4 

>  % 

03  O 

ry- 


a) 

5 

o 


zn 

VI 

c3 

CO 

c3  ~ 

kp-i  0; 


CO  > 
H  ^ 

So  2 

rH  rH 
H  m 

eS  C 


no 

ce 

£  - 


43 

r-H  ^ 
•  rH  © 

>-’^3 

o,  o, 

ce  O 

E-i  H 


03 
<£ 
43 
_  v 

"cS 


Ol 

Ol 


03 

Cj 


o 

-44 
03  - 

O  - 


pp 


o  o  o  o  o  o 
©  ©  ©  ©  ©  © 
©  ©  CO  CO  CO  CO 


o 

o 

cc 

[VJ 

£2 


03 


o 

<% 

P  £ 

o  e 

l  -i  WSJ 

bo  O 

O  St 
CiQ  *  ^ 

^  r2 

+=>  rH 

S  Ph 

^§3 

4-  -£ 


•  ~  o 

•  % 


ci 

t-t 

03 


03 

c 


x 

x 

~4 


X 

O 

«,«o 


o: 

03 


03 


Pi 

O 


r-<  «. 

o 

JO 

Co 

03 

Ph  _ 

44  P 

03 
03 

> 


fl 
o 

•  rH 

C3 
Pi 
Pi 

^  _  »“5 

a!  §  aj  h 


03 

a 

ft 

o 

x 

T3 


CD  _ 

«  S 


3  ^ 

5  o  ^  bo 

1«  ~.s 


s 

03  r 

f  -1  •  rH  '  ->  f ' 

C3  k-H  C3 

Wt^m^ 


M  ^  G 

^  0)  r^H 


S»  s* 


Cg  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

VH  ~  ~ 

®  - 

43  a 


03  H 

Ob 

'as  'as 
©  © 
03  03 
r*  M 
ci  c3 


03 

Jh 

d  g 
C  > 

■"S  += 

S  03 
03  03 


>;  >>  2> 


f  ° 

Pi  -p 

p>-j  o  C 

<_]  4 
44  >r_| 

44  b 

03  4 

03  IP 


£ 


>H 


CO 

O 

w  PP 

£  44-  „ 

W  &o  . 


O 


Jz; 

S3 


-+4 

OJ0. 

•  rH 

03 


03 


ci 


^  Ph 


03 

rH 

03 

C 


CD 


X 

X 

<1 


X 

O 

£T\ 


rH 

'o 

^  ^4  X 


X 

<5 


rvj 

a 

&  ^.S 

PP  ^  d3  ^ 
pi  a  ~ 
03  o  ^ 


3 

H 


C£) 


c5 


5° 

CC  03 

•  rH 

¥  d 


£H 

X 


c5 

•f 

03 

rH 

s 

o 


£5 


TABLE  showing  local  freight  rates  between  Boston  and  various  stations  via  the  Boston  &  Maine  and  Eastern  railroads 
before  lease  of  Eastern  to  Boston  &  Maine,  in  comparison  with  rates  between  same  stations  after  lease ;  also,  showing 
local  freight  rates  between  Nashua,  N.  H.,  and  various  stations  via  Concord  Railroad,  for  same  relative  distances,  on 


32 


Class 

^  L'-  O  © 

q^noj  rn 

pum 

O  iO  Ci  r*t 

h  rH 

puooag 

L—  N  M  CO  iO 

rH  i—H  rH 

8 

9 

14 

17 

19 

Hates  in  cents  per 
100  pounds  via  Con¬ 
cord  Railroad 

between 

NASHUA  and 

Reed’s  Ferry,  N.  II., 

God  ’s  Falls, 

Concord,  “ 

Epping,  “ 

Fortsmouth,  “ 

•souk 

9 

13 

35 

40 

59 

Class 

PHMX 

3 

4 

7 

7 

10 

10 

puooag 

4 

5 

8 

9 

13 

15 

1SJL1 

lO  CO  O  rH  00  O 

rH  rH  r-H 

Rates  in  cents  per  100 
pounds,  after  lease, 

between 

BOSTON 

and 

Lynn,  Mass., 

Salem,  “ 

Haverhill,  Mass., 

Newburyport,  Mass., 

Rochester,  N.  H., 

Portland,  Me., 

Class 

PHMX 

3 

4 

8 

7 

11 

10 

puooag 

rH  LQ  O  CP  hH  LO 

rH  rH  — h 

1S-UX 

to  CO  Cl  rH  00  O 

rH  rH  rH  Ol 

t- 

CO 

CO 


CO 


©  _ 
o 


«  £ 
s«2 

O  O 

o 


c 

o 

o 

> 


-  X 


o 

.a 


— ' 

cS  O 

rH  Ci 

*— I  rM 


o 

CO 

o 


c 

C3 


•seme 


vO 

*-»  CO 


o 


to 


CO 

c3 


bo 


CO 

c3 

rH 

ci 

go 

0) 


pq 

rH 
V— 4 

^  pq 

Cb 


o 

VO 


03 

<D 

ci 


- 
•  rr 

0) 


•+3 

ci 

0) 

o 


ci 


Ph 

PP 

w 

PQ 


ci 


03  r-5 


VO 


VO 


o  o 


c a 

n  ci 
^  H 

rd 

ci  ci 

O  o 


t'- 

co 

CO 


ci  ci 

PP  PP 


o 


VO 

Ol 


S  3 

§  a 
o  *2 


a> 


o 


Y, 

c 

H 

cc 

O 

PQ 


The  report  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners  of  New  Hampshire  for  the  year  ending  in  1887  shows  the  average  rate  of 
local  freight  per  ton  per  mile  as  follows : 

Boston  &  Lowell,  $2.76  Boston  &  Maine,  $2.78  Concord,  $3.12  Manchester  &  Lawrence,  $3.58 


33 


BOSTON  &  MAINE  RAILROAD. 

FREIGHT  DEPARTMENT. 

Boston,  July  23,  1887. 

Hon.  John  W.  Sanborn,  Concord,  N.  H. : 

Dear  Sir : — So  much  has  been  said  relative  to  freight  rates  between 
Haverhill,  Mass.,  and  stations  on  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  that  I 
have  thought  best  to  give  you  a  few  facts  showing  class  rates  in  force 
since  operating  the  Boston  &  Maine  and  Eastern  railroads  under  the 
present  lease,  in  comparison  with  rates  prior  to  the  lease. 

The  very  important  reduction  in  rates  wdiich  has  resulted  to  and  from 
Haverhill  since  the  lease  as  compared  to  rates  prior  to  the  lease,  will  be 
best  understood  by  an  examination  of  the  following  table : 


Rates  in  cents  per  100  lbs. 

between  Haverhill 

and 

Prior  to  lease. 

Since  the  lease  com¬ 
mencing  Feb.  1, 
1885. 

First  class. 

Second  class. 

Third  class. 

First  class. 

Second  class. 

Third  class. 

Boston,  Mass . 

12 

10 

8 

10 

8 

7 

Lawrence,  Mass . 

6 

0 

4 

5 

4 

3 

Lynn,  Mass . 

15 

13 

ii 

10 

8 

7 

Portsmouth,  N.  H.  .  .  . 

15 

13 

11 

15 

11 

9 

Wolfeborough,  N.  H.  .  . 

25 

21 

17 

25 

17 

12 

Salem,  Mass . 

16 

14 

12 

12 

10 

8 

Amesbury,  Mass . 

r 

13 

11 

9 

10 

8 

7 

A  comparison  of  rates  in  force  since  the  lease  with  rates  prior  to  the 
lease,  will  show  corresponding  reductions  between  nearly  all  local  stations 
on  Eastern  and  local  stations  on  Western  division. 

Yours  truly, 


W.  F.  Berry,  A.  G.F.  Ag't. 


BOSTON  &  MAINE  RAILROAD. 


FREIGHT  DEPARTMENT. 

Portland,  July  23,  1887. 

W.  J.  C.  Kenney,  Esq.,  G.  F.  A. : 

Dear  Sir: — In  answer  to  yours  of  the  22d  inst.,  with  testimony  of  Mr. 
Brown  attached,  I  would  say,  the  charge  of  $1.00  per  car  for  placing  on 
wharf  was  never  wholly  abolished  :  the  Berlin  Mills  and  W.  &  C.  R.  Milli- 
ken  are  the  only  shippers  who  did  not  pay  for  placing.  I  was  talking 
with  Mr.  Edwards,  Mr.  Brown’s  partner,  a  few  days  ago,  and  asked 
him  how  Mr.  B.  figured  an  advance  in  rates  after  the  lease,  and  he  said 
he  supposed  it  was  on  account  of  our  charging  for  placing  on  wharf. 

Yours  truly, 


R.  A.  McClutchy. 


